Theos-Talk Archives (August 1998 Message tt00097)

Paul J.:
         Well, I think if one of Blavatsky's adepts were to
make himself public - exhibiting phenomena,  giving the
philosophy again and its demonstration, and, in short,
proving beyond a doubt that he really was a bonafide
Adept -  he would probably be killed or incapacitated
within a short while, and a whole bunch of people would
go bonkers in one way or another (remember Sinnett's
idea about producing the London paper in India on the
same day...)
           Yes, we do need more inspiration and examples of
holiness.  Everyone also has an endless source of this
within themselves, also, if they can aspire to it in their
Higher Self.
          Yes, their are many "small s"  adepts, or masters in
their own area of expertise, and good ones too, here and
there.
       CELIBACY:   I'm not claiming that Theosophy
recommends celibacy - it doesn't except for chelahood.
I'm not claiming to be a lifelong-dedicated celibate monk
either, and don't want to give that impression.  Moderation
 and control is about the best path for most it seems
IMHO.

RILKE WRITES:

>If Koot is talking about the Mahatmas as the "some" then
>this implies there is some doubt among the Mahatmas as
>to HPB being the
>'best choice.' And if this is true, then it further implies a
>kind of "split" among the Mahatmas

-----------------------------------------------
       Just because "some" thought Blavatsky was
troublesome doesn't mean they didn't think she was still
the best choice.......   It  Might mean that they personally
couldn't stand to work with Anyone that was available.
    Of course there are "splits" and different methods,
although one has to believe that those in Blavatsky's
Lodge worked in concert.   There are "White" and
"Black" adepts also - and I guess that is about as big a
split in the big picture as you can get.
      -  Jake J.